BF2S Forums Self-Congratulation ( scratches head @ Liberals )

ATG wrote:

Nice rant, but it was without suggestion of a  way forward.

Remember this?..  what should have been.

"They needed more troops at the very beginning. Presence matters. You must begin occupations with crushing numbers. The defeated population must see their occupiers on every corner. You may be able to loosen restrictions quickly if the situation allows it but it is impossible to tighten up after you have permitted social chaos. We wage war to be politically correct. We use advanced technology and smart bombs to avoid "collateral" damage. This will not just be an American problem, this is the precedent for all wars to come. War's were never meant to be civilized. They must be ugly. The enemy's will must be completely broken. The Human race is evolving and what was acceptable in the past is no longer. Throw in Embedded journalist and 24/7 cable news and the job of the military has severely been impaired."

Oh yea, and don't completely disassemble the government. This is a big source of our problems.

462nd NSP653 wrote:

K, who's that quote from?

http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?pi … 7#p1192567

Ah...no wonder you remember it so well.

Well said. +1

Turquoise wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

ATG you forgot to mention this attitude also. Place all the blame on ourselves while Iraqis are driving chlorine filled tankers into their neighbors restaurant. Why it is so hard for some to point the finger at the actual murderers is beyond me. For underestimating their desire to commit barbaric acts of secretarian violence it gives the animals a pass I guess. They are the ones carrying out these attacks on each other, they must be held accountable first and foremost for their decisions. Ultimately that is.

Agreed.  We shouldn't take the full blame, but we should also recognize that the Middle East is a hopeless mess of a region, and that honestly, our best options are to do one of two things.

A) Leave it the fuck alone and move away from foreign oil.

Or....

B) Blow it to smithereens, since these people are going to kill each other anyway.

I say, fuck 'em.  We should just leave and improve our domestic security.  Enough of this bullshit nation-building handout mess.

This attitude is not owning up to our responsibilties.

ATG wrote:

No, but it defines the failure of liberals.
Thanks.

I guess the liberals fail becasue they cant get out of Iraq as easily as conservative president got into Iraq.
what do you expect me to say?  more of the same?  hell, why not implement this surge in the entire country.  let's just put a million troops there.  maybe that will solve 1500 years worth of problems.  you want liberals to fix it?  I guess it's nothing but liberals and conservatives now.  is that all that's left? then how about this?  fuck you conservatives, it's your fucking problem you fix it.

Last edited by Reciprocity (2007-05-01 21:15:28)

Reciprocity wrote:

ATG wrote:

No, but it defines the failure of liberals.
Thanks.

I guess the liberals fail becasue they cant get out of Iraq as easily as conservative president got into Iraq.
what do you expect me to say?  more of the same?  hell, why not implement this surge in the entire country.  let's just put a million troops there.  maybe that will solve 1500 years worth of problems.  you want liberals to fix it?  I guess it's nothing but liberals and conservatives now.  is that all that's left? then how about this?  fuck you conservatives, it's your fucking problem you fix it.

This is what I'm talking about.



http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite? … 2FShowFull

What's the liberal response to this?
More of the same, no doubt.

Reciprocity wrote:

ATG wrote:

No, but it defines the failure of liberals.
Thanks.

I guess the liberals fail becasue they cant get out of Iraq as easily as conservative president got into Iraq.
what do you expect me to say?  more of the same?  hell, why not implement this surge in the entire country.  let's just put a million troops there.  maybe that will solve 1500 years worth of problems.  you want liberals to fix it?  I guess it's nothing but liberals and conservatives now.  is that all that's left? then how about this?  fuck you conservatives, it's your fucking problem you fix it.

Our problem.... Do I need to remind you of all the Dems who stood behind an invasion while they themselves were proclaiming Saddam a threat?

Kmarion wrote:

Our problem.... Do I need to remind you of all the Dems who stood behind an invasion while they themselves were proclaiming Saddam a threat?

and they were all stupid and irresponsible.  that 42% of democrats failed to do their elected job.  but there is only one Commander in Chief.

ATG wrote:

As my respected esteemed co-chair of the DST HOF, I select you to dissect to make my point:

CameronPoe wrote:

I've said countless times before - Iranians are by and large a progressive people and Iran is a great nation. The people will see that Ahmedinejad is not re-elected but instead replaced with a moderate like Khatami.

Here we have an example of Cameron A) advocating letting things sort them selves out ( hopefully ) and B) self-congratulating himself by praising the Persian culture.
The reality is, Iran is destabilizing what existing peace there is by being in violation of U.N. mandates in regards to its nuclear program. They are actively engaged in terrorism. You know it, liberals know it.

ATG - nothing I said is incorrect. Iran is a great nation, steeped in tradition and an ancient culture, having the only thing approaching a working democracy in existence in the entire middle east (Turkey aside). It is a complex people that few understand - there are many disparate groups pulling this way and that for power in that country - it is not some dictatorship. Governmentally, they sponsor counter-Israel terrorism. That is a local issue for them, it shouldn't concern you that they do because that would be hypocritical: the US sponsors Israeli state-terrorism. So that's 1-1 in my book. Whether or not they governmentally support insurgent groups in Iraq is highly debatable. The Iranian government has steadily improving diplomatic relations with the Iraqi 'government'.  What you have been duped into is what is perpetuating the Iranian siege mentality - you think they are a direct threat to you, which they most certainly are not. Because you do think they're a threat, as your leaders would have you believe, Washington can fell comfortable dishing out anti-Iranian rhetoric ad nauseam. This rhetoric and the fact that the US are on either side of Iran, thousands of miles from the USA on the Iranian doorstep - in their neighbourhood - drives Iran to withdraw into themselves and posture defensively, thus keeping the cycle of suspicion going. I'm glad to see that the Bush administration is finally opening up to Iran - they just have their own national pride and self interest at heart, something that has grated successive US administrations since the Islamic Revolution and before that (CIA-sponsored Mossadeq overthrow anyone?).

Me stating facts about Iran is not self congratulation. What I insinuate in that comment is that there are a lot of idiots on this forum that understand little about Iran - they buy the media blurb - when in reality they are more deserving of respect that that.

ATG wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

Why should they care about the situation in Iraq? It's not like the US military can do anything about it. It's the Iraqis problem now (always was) - time for them to take charge of their own affairs like proper grown ups. Isn't 'Personal Responsibility' the American way?

Here we have an example of Cameron A) In denial of the reality of the duplicity of the international community stoking the fires of war with toothless resolutions, and B) self-congratulating himself by attempting to " talk down " to America by suggesting we are going against our own ideals in Iraq when the reality is, an Islamic militant governed Middle East will be a disaster for the world. You know it, liberals know it. I'm not faulting Cam for his views, I am simply examining them and asking myself " where is the counter-idea that involves human realities and responsibilities" , when the world surely needs it.

Too often, feel good policies apply bandages to problems while infecting the wound.

I take pleasure in being playfully smug because I know it annoys people, nothing more nothing less. Smugness is not a preserve of 'liberals' by any means. Take a look at a couple of Lowing or Major_Spittle's posts and you'll soon get the picture. Being patronising is fun. Simple as. I'm not patronising in 'real life' - I do it here for kicks. I certainly don't think I or 'liberals' have a monopoly on it. I mean - this very OP reeks of smugness:

'seems to be a large empty silence when it comes to  " what the fuck now. " - smugly stating the opposition has no alternative course of action or any good ideas when they have plenty.

'We got it, George Bush is a...bad president' - so you get it, but you don't care or don't want to do anything about it or hear suggestions of how to do things better?

As to the quote of mine:

a) Point out where I deny the 'duplicity of the international community stoking the fires of war with toothless resolutions' - if you can read between my lines and find that then I'd like to know what you're smoking. I don't even properly understand what you are getting at with that sentence..?

b) I don't see how pointing out hypocrisy in the US right wing is self-congratulatory. A central belief of most right wingers is that the responsibility with succeeding and getting ahead in life lies with the self, which to be quite frank is mind-blowingly at odds with stepping in to 'liberate an oppressed people'. The countless contradictions that a lot of right wingers have to deal with in their own minds is amazing.

c) Most forum users will be quite well aware of my theories and ideas on how to deal with terrorism, Iraq and various other issues. I'm surprised you haven't read them ATG. To paint me in particular as someone who complains about something without talking about what should be done or the consequences of what I propose should be done is mildly insulting.

ATG wrote:

One major problem with the left, is that there seems to be a large empty silence when it comes to  " what the fuck now. "

We got it, George Bush is a...bad president, but I need to hear something from the democrats and leftists that doesn't involve a announced withdraw, and the slaughter of large amounts of Iraqis, and other Muslims in the carnage that will surely follow.

/discuss

As stated, if you choose to overlook/not read the countless alternative paths and ideas offered by the 'liberal' community on this website then that's your prerogative. Just don't complain about a 'large empty silence' that doesn't exist.

Thank you and good day little one.

Last edited by CameronPoe (2007-05-02 02:16:59)

ATG wrote:

That's the fucking problem, you guys are alright with a zoo-keeper.

So were the government that put him there.

ATG wrote:

Perhaps our experiment in freedom 101 has failed, but the question remains, or the point still stand you don't have a better idea.

Whether or not it was an experiment in freedom, which is possible and it has certainly failed if it was, it is certainly a mess. Iraq is now a worse place to live than it was before the war and is certainly a worse place to live than somewhere like Iran. Even the rise of a strong Islamic government in Iraq would make life better for the people than it currently is.

There are 3 paths that could be taken at this point; withdrawal, staying and policing Iraq indefinately or splitting the nation into 3.

Complete withdrawal could have various consequences. There is the possibility of civil war. It is quite possible that this could turn into another war by proxy much like the earlier Iran - Iraq war where the US did:

Reagan wrote:

whatever was necessary and legal to prevent Iraq from losing the war with Iran

Depending on the outcome of this war, which would certainly involve Iran on some level or another, Iraq may become an Islamic republic or have a strong military leader rise to power leading a secular state.

Splitting the nation in 3 with Sunni, Shia and Kurdish states could work. But if history has shown us anything, it is that countries sliced up by foreign powers in this way crumble very easily. The Turks wouldn't be too happy about a Kurdish state either and there could be all sorts of problems in the setup of 3 different nations - although it is more likely that one or two would succeed while the other(s) failed.

Staying won't change anything. We've had years of occupation and things haven't improved one bit. Whether or not this is the fault of the people, it isn't helping the situation being there and if the majority of military spokespeople are to be believed, it never will.

Change is needed. The current strategy is not working and a new approach needs to be taken.

ATG wrote:

Armchair quarterbacking, criticism without suggestion of a better plan, etc.

The plan that has been suggested is to start withdrawing troops. It's not a perfect plan, but it's realistic, since it acknowledges the hopelessness of the situation and misallocation of resources on lost causes is not only wasteful, but stupid.

The main reason the British have set a timetable for withdrawal is down to the statements of the head af the army, General Sir Richard Dannatt.

General Sir Richard Dannatt wrote:

History will show that a vacuum was created and into the vacuum malign elements moved. The hope that we might have been able to get out of Iraq in 12, 18, 24 months after the initial start in 2003 has proved fallacious. Now hostile elements have got a hold it has made our life much more difficult in Baghdad and in Basra.

The original intention was that we put in place a liberal democracy that was an exemplar for the region, was pro-West and might have a beneficial effect on the balance within the Middle East.

That was the hope. Whether that was a sensible or naïve hope, history will judge. I don't think we are going to do that. I think we should aim for a lower ambition.

He goes on to say that we should:

Richard Dannatt wrote:

get ourselves out sometime soon because our presence exacerbates the security problems. We are in a Muslim country and Muslims' views of foreigners in their country are quite clear. As a foreigner, you can be welcomed by being invited into a country, but we weren't invited, certainly by those in Iraq at the time. Let's face it, the military campaign we fought in 2003 effectively kicked the door in.

That is a fact. I don't say that the difficulties we are experiencing around the world are caused by our presence in Iraq, but undoubtedly our presence in Iraq exacerbates them.

There is a clear distinction between our status and position in Iraq and in Afghanistan, which is why I have much more optimism that we can get it right in Afghanistan.

The people in charge on the ground seem to think withdrawal is the right idea. Instead focusing on Afghanistan where progress is more likely to be made.

Almost any change in Iraq will be beneficial for the people there.

ATG wrote:

As to withdrawing and announcing it or not, I am not fixated on withdraw, I am fixated at a fair shot at freedom for everybody.

That is, after all, why we went there in the first place.

Is it though? I have never been convinced of that fact.

ATG wrote:

I was in the book store yesterday thumbing through one of the many environmentalist books, towards the end of one I noticed this line;

even if you can't do all you would like toward living green you can at least congradulate yourself on taking small steps to improve the planet.

This, imo is  what environmentalism  and much else on the political left's agenda is all about, self-congratulation.

As my respected esteemed co-chair of the DST HOF, I select you to dissect to make my point:

CameronPoe wrote:

I've said countless times before - Iranians are by and large a progressive people and Iran is a great nation. The people will see that Ahmedinejad is not re-elected but instead replaced with a moderate like Khatami.

Here we have an example of Cameron A) advocating letting things sort them selves out ( hopefully ) and B) self-congratulating himself by praising the Persian culture.
The reality is, Iran is destabilizing what existing peace there is by being in violation of U.N. mandates in regards to its nuclear program. They are actively engaged in terrorism. You know it, liberals know it.

CameronPoe wrote:

Why should they care about the situation in Iraq? It's not like the US military can do anything about it. It's the Iraqis problem now (always was) - time for them to take charge of their own affairs like proper grown ups. Isn't 'Personal Responsibility' the American way?

Here we have an example of Cameron A) In denial of the reality of the duplicity of the international community stoking the fires of war with toothless resolutions, and B) self-congratulating himself by attempting to " talk down " to America by suggesting we are going against our own ideals in Iraq when the reality is, an Islamic militant governed Middle East will be a disaster for the world. You know it, liberals know it. I'm not faulting Cam for his views, I am simply examining them and asking myself " where is the counter-idea that involves human realities and responsibilities" , when the world surely needs it.

Too often, feel good policies apply bandages to problems while infecting the wound.

One major problem with the left, is that there seems to be a large empty silence when it comes to  " what the fuck now. "

We got it, George Bush is a...bad president, but I need to hear something from the democrats and leftists that doesn't involve a announced withdraw, and the slaughter of large amounts of Iraqis, and other Muslims in the carnage that will surely follow.

/discuss


* edit    Also, Ignorance is no impediment to strong opinions, I'm proof of that.

Good post. IMO the same applies to religion.

CameronPoe wrote:

Man ATG opened up a can of worms here he'll regret....

Hardly,
in my view, you are all acknowledging that you have no plan going forward except " see, I told you so " and " let them sort it out."

Which is what I'm saying.
No visible plan.
No  realistic ideas.

Nothing but contempt for Bush and America.
How is that helping again?